Anti-Glock: The Dark Side of Plastic Perfection

Upon hearing about my fellow TAG team member Brian‘s article titled “Do All Roads Lead to Glock?,” I knew with absolute certainty I had to present the other half of the argument and be that guy—the Glock hater. I’m tired of shootists perpetually singing the praises of this platform—it’s the ultimate in reliability, they’re inexpensive, all the pros use them—and I intend to call attention to a few of the downsides. If you read this article and say, “well half of that is just personal preference,” you’re absolutely correct. Take it with a grain of salt. And if you’re a devout Glock lover, a couple ibuprofen, too.

1. Spongy trigger:

Stock triggers on Glocks are like bad employees: They’re creepy, gritty, and inconsistent. Don’t feed me a line about aftermarket modifications to improve the trigger, either. Yes, I know that Glock, being so popular, has widely available aftermarket parts, many of them inexpensive and easy to install. But if I buy a new car, I don’t want to have to immediately take it to a body shop to have the steering improved, even if it’s cheap to do it.

2. No external safety:

Not a problem for pros. Some would even argue that not having an external safety makes the Glock that much simpler or more streamlined. But pros aren’t the only ones buying Glocks. In fact, newbie shooters seem to gravitate toward the platform based in large part on pop culture (Hollywood action movies and rap songs come to mind), and since they fall well within a new shooter’s modest price range, many end up taking a Glock home as their first handgun. The problem is, a new shooter may lack the trigger discipline necessary to safely operate it. Having those extra manual safeties in place provides a cognitive layer of protection: It forces the shooter to consciously take that external safety off prior to pulling the trigger, and reinforces the notion that the gun is now fully prepared to fire.

3. Unnatural grip angle:

Not the same for everyone, I know. Some people find that the Glock points very naturally for them. For me, when comparing the grip angle and overall “feel” of a Glock to that of, say, a Sig Sauer P225, it’s on par with comparing a wide, lopsided brick to a handful of pizza dough.

4. Poorly manufactured sights:

The Glock’s plastic sights are probably the only parts of the gun that don’t align with Glock’s M.O. of durability and longevity. With regular holstering and unholstering, they may wear out, chip, crack, break, fall out, or otherwise leave you shooting like Paul Hogan in the film Lightning Jack. Yeah, yeah, you’re going to say “well mine haven’t,” or “you can just replace them if they break.” Well, let’s just say I’d prefer to not have to. See #1 for more on that.

5. Void of aesthetic appeal:

Most Glock owners grudgingly admit that these guns are dog-ugly (okay, maybe not as bad as the one shown top, which was apparently made by a Russian amateur gunmaker using sawdust and epoxy, and chambered to 9×18 Makarov—yeah, it’s a real gun), but what really makes them unappealing to me is their lack of character. Unlike a blued, steel handgun with walnut grips that just takes on more and more character and patina with time and use (right, above), a used Glock looks about like a new one (right, below). Bland.

Conclusion:

Because I don’t want any death threats over this, I’m going to do a couple things. First, I will reluctantly admit that, in a pinch, I would gladly take a Glock over a rock of similar weight and dimensions. They are reliable, they are plenty accurate for most defensive applications, and they hold an impressive amount of ammunition given their weight. Second, I openly invite you to explain to me (please be civil, I have a fragile ego) why I’m horribly wrong and an embarrassment to the shooting sports in the comments below.

Primary image courtesy of improguns.blogspot.ca